ROOMS THAT SAY "U.S.A."
A dive into the very insightful "DECORATION U.S.A." (1965, ISBN: 9780030151064)
Dear Snoops,
First, a public service announcement:
Did you catch that, from August 17, FOR SCALE XL (our suped-up edition, for paid subscribers) will be increased to WEEKLY POSTS (subscribe here). Some first issues will be: a Turin décor pilgrimage plus city guide; a list of the best sellers in Los Angeles; a report on décor “swagger” and how to achieve it; and big-wigs like RARIFY, CONCORDE and DUNG NGO find the best used (and some new) décor listings on the Intern*t.
ONWARDS WITH “DECORATION U.S.A.”!:
In general, scans from interiors books have garnered many Instagr*m users 100s of Ks of followers, but there is no place there to engage with the actual ideas and words of those books. It’s sad, because, many (esp. earlier ones) are written with exceptional panache – “Decoration U.S.A.” is charmingly, and at times snidely, written. Very good combo.
Example of a D/USA point of view:
“Drastic changes in the design or function of furniture seldom happen spontaneously. They are more likely to evolve in answer to the needs and customs of the day. One of this century’s major developments — and perhaps the only one owing nothing to the past – is the self-supporting storage wall…”
Seriously, it takes guts and guile – in the midst of one of the most thrilling decades in décor – to name the “self-supporting storage wall” as Icon.
It’s this taste for the humble that drives us wild.
Yet, after praising the first half of the 20th century, they warned: “Only a constantly rising level of taste and the ability to recognize and demand the best can prevent this country from becoming, as the direr prophets predict, a wasteland of urban conglomerations and coast-to-coast developments.”
OOPS! Sorry, boys.
The ‘mediocre and meaningless’ in decoration is very much available at CB2 - and it’s on sale!
NOTES ON THE “AMERICAN” HOME
We’ll take a quick aside to note that we are in Los Angeles, but we’re Canadian. (Even though, as you’ll see, we’re not taking an “AMERICA, RA! RA! RA!” position.)
1965, according to Decoration U.S.A.:
→ Homes are reworked in the face of squeezes on space and new domestic-helpless realities: i.e. space-saving, self-serviceability
→ Dining, books and music ergo relegated to corners, due to status as Part-Time activities; open-plan living emerges and so does the euphemism “togetherness”. Results in “frayed nerves” and “lapsed manners” (Don’t tell this to the people of THE LOFT)
→ The size of the house dissolves as determining factor of layout; all homes use the same logic of organization (again, “togetherness” – everything is open, no matter whether it has the space for walls or not)
2023, according to FOR SCALE:
→ Distinct “ROOMS” remained vilified, even while privacy is further obliterated by digital-meetings intrusion into home
→ The “Statement room” has been condensed into the “Statement chair”, of which app-based décor influencers have several, yet still don’t manage a statement room – more a statement in excess. We’re skeptical
→ We battle a certain décor homogenization being advanced via the prevalence and limited range of home technologies (e.g. televisions, Apple-only computers, the “soft, white, friendly robot” such as the Lomi or the Sonos or the Router, the stainless steelness of the double-wide appliance; etc.)
It begs the question: are we against “clutter” because our technologically-‘simplified’ lives actually come with so many Things? We have no room for much apart from service tech.
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE:
CHANGES IN AMERICAN LIFE AND THE SCHROEDINGER-TYPE SPACE BETWEEN “FOR ME” AND “FOR YOU”
In D/USA’s room-by-room evaluation, which includes such keen observations as:
→ The dining room has waned as the kitchen has waxed (still does!)
→ “A singular product of the twentieth century that has become as familiar and accepted as transistor radios and tranquilizers is the room that remains on camera twenty-four hours a day.” (so prescient! They were just talking about the studio apartment, but today it’s literal – and how does The Eye of The Outsider influence décor? Immensely, sadly!)
→ “The entrance hall was for long the Cinderella of decoration, seldom noticed because it was seldom noteworthy.” (aside: we’re still waiting for someone to identify a noteworthy TRASH CAN, please.)
There are two rooms we shall compare/contrast with today:
1. THE FAMILY ROOM
Once – but no longer - the exclusive, private territory of ‘The family’, it is instead the primary place to entertain guests in a kind of “oh, this old place? It’s just the family room” faux-modesty manner. A plague!
When the formal ‘living room’ and the rumpus ‘family room’ merge, conceptually and literally (because who has both, in this economy), it’s the private family room that loses out. Most of us just have one, and we opt for this Private-becomes-Display 1965-“family room” version. Let’s be real here: even in hyper-”individual” America, we are still uneasy with décor that expresses such individuality. We décor for OTHERS. (A plague!)
The “family room”-cum-”living room” has existed in its liminal space for SIXTY YEARS, without resolution, and now other rooms suffer the same fate. The squeeze on space = the more becomes FOR EVERYONE, and not, as the French, f*cking private space.
SIDENOTE
Special project upcoming that will dissect the “REC ROOM”, and it’s sacred informality and durability. It is, also, a quintessentially American concept.
Relevant D/USA décor notes on the FAMILY ROOM:
→ to be impressive without being oppressive; i.e. Ok, so you need to keep up appearances – by all means, be cute. Just don’t suffocate yourself with a “perfected”, precious, showroom-vibe interior. Non-clear liquids must be allowed, i.e. spills must not be a punishable offense
→ use rugs that can be rolled back to reveal dance-floor-appropriate flooring
2. THE GUEST BEDROOM
First, of course, one is lucky to have a ‘spare’ room. And, even in the era of Decoration U.S.A., it was under new pressure. The once sterile motel-like guest room was becoming the home of Part-Time Possibilities: part guest room, part “study”, part “studio” (they probably meant for painting; today it’s more likely podc*sting).
Anyway, you might think this unfortunate – to lose the luxury, the sanctity of single-use. But, for D/USA, it “had a tonic effect”.
Single-use = Formality. The pressure to make the Guest Bedroom work harder has made it “undistinguishable” from its sibling, the Personal Bedroom – a place that was lived in, reflected personal style, yadda yadda.
AGAIN: the liminal space is BACK AGAIN. Décor is half-personal half-presentation. (As a little contrast with the U.S.A.: The wealthy French or Dutch do All Presentation; the wealthy Brits to All Personal, i.e. consciously dirty, messy – you’re too rich to care what others think!)
A COLOR TIMELINE
Color is also a fixation for “Decoration U.S.A.”, and rightfully so.
1946: POST-WAR “WE HATE DRAB”
World War 2 is universally acknowledged to have been a bad time, to put it mildly. In its wake, Americans were feeling themselves and so pumped up on color.
One revelation: “Now even wood is treated as a color.”
This is the dominant aesthetic of décor today. Colors but not really anything particularly committed.
POST-1946: “LOOKS” AS A CONCEPT
“Looks” became a thing, as in people started to aspire to participate in one LOOK or another LOOK. And, the look was WHITE. Yet, somehow it was done much better than it’s done now.
WHITE LOOK HISTORY: It was, allegedly “launched in London by decorator Syrie Maugham”, a.k.a. the White Queen and The Princess of Pale. A space by Syrie below. Actually, we hate it, but we get where she’s coming from:
Compare that to a 1960s WHITE LOOK:
Compare, again, to a WHITE LOOK as it was revived in the 1990s, and the SoHo loft of Giorgio Deluca a.k.a. Dean & Deluca:
In all cases, protective fabric finishes are key. And, we daren’t show a White Look of today – it’s very Syrie-an, as you are surely aware – as in, it just kind of seems too basic as an idea. Just WHITE STUFF, without an ability to integrate anything else.
For Syrie, as now – as we have discussed before – White is often used as a mask for Making No Choices, and just letting anything and everything infiltrate your interior simply because it is Colorless.
Other “Looks” of the post-1946 era focused on SINGLE COLOR VIBES:
Again, the 1990s provided some parallel. See, for example, Julian Schnabel’s all-red approach:
ENTERING THE 1960s: THE MULTICOLOR “LOOK”
A more “Look”-conscious approach to mixing, that relieves the monotony of White and Single Color. It was short-lived, and yet, really started something. “Color,” D/USA suggests, “is solidly established in America as a way of life.”
And, we all know the 1960s were also the era of drug—induced Verner Panton interiors, etc. So, D/USA really does try to avoid very SIGN OF THE TIMES design for a more steady, mainstream America. And, we appreciate that too.
We’re great fans of this vibe, something that feels kind of put-together but also not all fresh from the Showroom floor – like, some inherited things, some outliers, some of this, some of that.
Some day we’ll complete this timeline. Because, of course, the Industrial fetish of the mid-late-century was in part an era of non-color: it was often glass-steel. And we’re keen to dissect the colorless world.
The main takeaway from a D/USA perspective on color is this:
→ Multicolor = naiveté and novelty as a reaction to a period of enforced restriction
→ the WHITE LOOK = self-conscious restriction, and monochrome-as-décor as a reaction to naiveté. The joy was too easy, it had to be smothered
→ the [INSERT SINGLE COLOR] LOOK = a desire to hang onto color while appropriating the “Sophistication” of décor’s original “LOOK” (i.e. the White Look)
→ Multicolor, but as a Look = worst of both worlds: the high stress of Look Participation, but less obvious to the outside observer
Honestly, again, we’ve kind of rambled and lost track of time, and lost all sense of length. But, we’ll catch you on THURSDAY for the FOR SCALE XL TURIN CITY GUIDE.
Love and good luck,
applause applause applause
the fabric backing, behind the book photos though...curious readers are curious
Made my evening. Thank you